Human Rights. They also aver that the Respondent State violated Articles 13(6)(d) and 14 of its Constitution due to the capital punishment regime. They submit, therefore, that the Respondent State violated their right to life as enshrined under Article 4 of the Charter. * 89. The Respondent State avers that the High Court and the Court of Appeal did not breach Articles 13(6)(d) and 14 of its Constitution insofar the Court of Appeal is the final authority in dispensing justice in its jurisdiction as per Article 107A (1) of the Constitution. It further argues that the punishment for the offence of murder is provided for by statute, under Section 197 of the Penal Code and that the Court of Appeal, has upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty as provided for by its Constitution. *** 90. The Court notes that Article 4 of the Charter provides that: “[h]uman beings are inviolable. Every human being shall be entitled to respect for his life and the integrity of his person. No one may be arbitrarily deprived of this right”. 91. The Court recalls the well-established international human rights case-law on the criteria to apply in assessing the arbitrariness of a death sentence,33 that is, whether the death sentence is provided for by law, whether the sentence was passed by a competent court and whether due process was followed in the proceedings leading to the death sentence. 33 See International Pen and Others (on behalf of Saro-Wiwa) v. Nigeria, Communications 137/94 139/94, 154/96, 161/97 (2000) AHRLR 212 (ACHPR 1998), §§ 1-10 and § 103; Forum of Conscience v. Siena Leone, Communication 223/98 (2000) 293 (ACHPR 2000), § 20.; See Article 6(2), ICCPR; and Eversley Thompson v. St. Vincent & the Grenadines, Comm. No. 806/1998, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C70IO/806/1998 (2000) (U.N.H.C.R.), 8.2; See also, Ally Rajabu and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 November 2019) 3 AfCLR 539, § 104. 24